Because the environmentalists say more refineries will be dangerous. That's why we don't have them. Nuclear power is carbon free energy, yet they don't like that either. Then they complain that hydroelectric hurts the fish. Personally I think the environmentalists won't be happy until we are all riding in donkey carts, and lighting our homes with candles.

-Jay

im one for keeping the environment clean and healthy but one narrow strip of tress where wild weeds/plants and such will take over (where animals can feed) is not going to ruin the earth, nor is drilling oil in the arctic, nor is a few hydro dams going to wreak havoc on fish populations...

nuclear power is the best way to go, sure it has nasty waste but they produce far less waste than a coal plant (when it comes to air pollution, water pollution/etc)and the way we get the reaction wont runaway like chenobal (russia power plant that blew up) theres 2 ways to do have a reaction, one of em can get runaway if one part breaks(like its uncontrollable reaction) but the other if you loose part of the reaction it simply stops, dangerous inside but wont blow up the town...

It was my understanding that the oil is a heavy crud that our refiners could not process. God forbid if we built a refinery to handle it.

I thought we had such refineries for Venezualian crude.

Environmentalists and NIMBY's may be putting up some blocks, but they also make good scapegoats. The fact is reduced refinery capacity puts a constrain on supply and thus increases profits. The Saudis have offered to build refineries in the US twice, but Bush and the oil companies said no to it.

I think allowing the off-shore drilling is just adding profits to the oil companies for the limited future.. that would delay the development of alternative, reusable energy. Americans have lived with low oil prices for too long, short term fix like off-shore drilling is not helping Americans to deal with reality.

__________________Master your environment and you will survive just fine.Chances favor the prepared mind.

research the actual profit margins of oil companies before you start stating that oil companies will reap huge profits.

while it's true that the oil companies profits have increased, it is due to the increase in demand and not due to the increase in price. the demand will keep increasing and the majority of the profits will go to the middle east instead of western oil companies.

at the bottom of the equation we are still going to be sending over $700 billion a year to foreign countries which in turn woud find its way to sponsorship of terrorists.

if oil companies reap windfall profits due to the increase in domestic oil production, so be it. it's guaranteed though that those dollars will not go to terrorists.

most people that oppose domestic oil drilling also fail to see, whether they know it or not, that the US government will earn billions as well, not just from the lease of oil properties but from taxes of the profits of the companies that would drill and produce the oil.

The alternative is to keep sending $700 billion a year to countries that does not hold American security as their top priority.

according to thos who oppose drilling for domestic oil, we should keep sending oil dollars abroad and enable the sponsorship of terrorists while opposing military action against the same terrorists, keep hoping on alternative energy that is underfunded and still decades away from replacing even just a small percentage of our energy needs while the politicians championing the same alternative energy block any project in their backyard, keep blaming oil companies for the increase in oil price and block them from the much needed supply that will meet the demand and lower the price, blame oil for a myriad of climate problems but keep blocking practical solutions at the same time like the solar power plant in California and Wind Farm off the coast of Hyannisport.

I don't know about any of you but, it is a fact that oil is part of our lives not just when we turn on a bulb or start our cars and we need to increase domestic oil output to ensure affordable energy, use profits from it to fund Alternative energy initiatives, and keep most of the $700 billion oil dollars within the US. the alternative, which is the status quo that many liberal politicians want to preserve - keep sending billions of dollars overseas, keep blocking alternative energy projects on their backyards, keep blaming oil companies for the increase in price instead of the lack of supply, bury their heads in the sand and hope that alternative energy (that they are actually blocking) magically appear somewhere to replace 100% of our energy needs.

that's a pipe dream! Democrats keep mouthing off that alternative energy is the only way, yet Nancy Pelosi is hell bent on stating that we need to increase the supply of oil by releasing oil from the Strategic oil reserve. let's look at that for a minute - she is stating that we shouldn't increase oil production domestically YET we should release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve. Releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve will not reduce LONG TERM OIL DEPENDENCY BUT ONLY INCREASE DEMAND SINCE THE OIL RELEASED WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED.

W have an energy crisis, we need to increase supply. it is clear who is blocking it, and it is clear that we need to drill more oil domestically in order to reduce long term energy prices, AND INCREASE FUNDING IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY EFFORTS.

And what good does this do in the short term, as in right now? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Maybe Bush is just getting himself set so once he is out of the WH he can go back to being a Texas oil man and already have some off shore gig waiting.

And what good does this do in the short term, as in right now? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Maybe Bush is just getting himself set so once he is out of the WH he can go back to being a Texas oil man and already have some off shore gig waiting.

So much for his environmental policy.

Oil price is down today due to the talk of lifting the ban on domestic drilling. Oil futures, as the term "futures" implies, react to the increase supply in the future term of a specific commodity.

serious efforts in domestic oil right now will lower prices in the short term.

saying that we shouldn't do anything because it won't lower prices is another excuse that will raise prices HIGHER in the future.

to use your example, no parent should invest in their children's college fund since they won't see any benfit for it right now.

if we drill now, we ensure lower future prices. if we don't do anything as you're saying we will keep sending billions of dollars overseas. oppose drilling, block alternative energy projects, bury your head in the sand and wish the situation fixes itself. yeah, that's a good solution for the problem alright.

And what good does this do in the short term, as in right now? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Maybe Bush is just getting himself set so once he is out of the WH he can go back to being a Texas oil man and already have some off shore gig waiting.

So much for his environmental policy.

do not take this as a personal attack, but i'm a bit sick of the views of "profit is evil" and "it's W's fault."

capitalism is a big part of what makes the US successful. i wish i owned stock in oil!

the US president is in many ways a pawn of political agendas, given or losing support of his particular party.

do not take this as a personal attack, but i'm a bit sick of the views of "profit is evil" and "it's W's fault."

capitalism is a big part of what makes the US successful. i wish i owned stock in oil!

the US president is in many ways a pawn of political agendas, given or losing support of his particular party.

you got that right!

in their minds the oil companies ar evil....never mind the fact that those companies hire people, give their workers benefits, contribute to a free market economy (well, a not so free market lately).

to see them profiting is a much better option than to see the money going to terrorists.

it's also a common oversight that the government makes a percentage of every gallon of gasoline bought, so that the higher the price the higher the government's share of the bounty. oil companie's pofits equate to around 10% of each gallon sold, the government's share increases when the price goes up since it is a prcentage of the price.

many of those who complain about oil companies "profits", and "oilmen in the white house" are actually clueless about the economics of the oil industry.

You're missing the point, and I am suprised since this is a gas saver's forum. What about all this talk of trying to develop alternative energy sources? Or protecting the environment? Off shore drilling does not help in either of those areas and the economic benefits of such are far into the future.

Bush is an oil man and he is going to look out for those interests. As president, he's supposed to be looking out for the interests of the American people, not of a particular industry solely. Profit is not evil, profit at the expense of others is.

The profit margins that the oil companies see is not out of line one bit. But all that is focused on in the news is this "Billions of dollars" in profits. So what? I understand this stuff to some degree since accouting is my background and took a few economics courses along the way. If an oil company makes a $1B profit with a $10B operating revenue, that's 10% and not that bad. If they were grabbing 30% then I would be a bit concerned, but not at 10%. People who take a figure like billions of profits and never consider the margin are clueless.